Page 259 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
That is not the result of the independent arbitration that has occurred. This arbitration has been commissioned by, and undertaken by, the parties in accordance with commonly accepted and universal commercial arbitration approaches and methodologies. It has been undertaken by a person expert in the arbitration of commercial disputes.
I love how Mr Hanson and Ms Bresnan put themselves in the shoes of those experts, people with decades and decades of experience in arbitrating commercial disputes, and say, “No, we know better. The arbitrator, that is not relevant.” It is entirely relevant because, under the contract that the territory entered into with the contractor to build the prison, there were clear and specific mechanisms for resolving disputes and determining who was responsible for delays. That is what was in the contract.
Opposition members interjecting—
MR CORBELL: I know they do not like to listen to this stuff, because they know they got it wrong. The Liberal Party know they got it wrong. The Greens know they got it wrong. The committee knows it got it wrong. The committee knows it got it wrong, because in that contract there are specific dispute mechanisms for determining who is responsible for delay and who needs to pay for that delay. It is a legal process. And that legal process has been completed. It has not been disputed by BLL. The arbitrator has determined—
Opposition members interjecting—
MR CORBELL: You do not like it, but it is the truth and you need to get your heads around it. The arbitrator has determined that BLL is responsible for the delays and the delays are associated with the installation of the security system. If you want to see that arbitrator’s report, call for that arbitrator’s report.
Ms Hunter: Table it.
MR CORBELL: Those are the facts, and the members of this Assembly who do not believe that need to start getting their heads around it. I hear the interjection from Ms Hunter that the government should table it. I would be happy to provide it to the Assembly if the Assembly so ordered. The reason I take that approach is that the contract between the territory and BLL as the contractor has a confidentiality clause in relation to the results of arbitration. However, there is also a clause in the contract that says the territory is released from that confidentiality clause if the minister has to do certain things in relation to his obligations to report to the Assembly.
I cannot volunteer it but, if the Assembly so orders, the government can provide it. That is the legal position and that is why I have adopted the course of action that I have. That is entirely appropriate. The government has made provision in the contract for Assembly processes and, if the Assembly so orders, the government will provide it.
The government will not be supporting Ms Bresnan’s amendment. It fails to recognise that there is a problem, and the problem lies with the committee report. For that reason, it cannot be supported.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video